Safety researchers have investigated how people assign blame for injuries sustained during the use of or exposure to consumerproducts. In this study, we examine attributions made by people given product-use scenarios that describe a girl whose age ismanipulated to be from 18 months to 16 years and who suffers serious brain damage after choking on marshmallows madeavailable to her by her mother. Supplementary information intended to be either positive or detrimental to the manufacturer andits safety practices was either present or absent from the scenario. Approximately half of the participants in the positive framecondition also received sample product warnings purportedly developed and used by the manufacturer. In general, participantsallocated more responsibility to the girl's parents than to the manufacturer. As predicted, allocation of blame to the girl varieddirectly with her age. The greater the age of the child, the greater the blame she received. Supplementary information that caststhe manufacturer and the manufacturer's practices in a positive light shifted blame away from the manufacturer toward the girland her parents. Conversely, supplementary information detrimental to the manufacturer shifted blame away from the girl and herparents and toward the manufacturer. The warnings had no measurable effect on allocation of blame. The implications of theseresults for consumers, legal professionals, and researchers are discussed.
展开▼
